SPRINGFIELD — Baca County officials are pushing back after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently listed the county as a “sanctuary jurisdiction” in a federal report aimed at identifying localities perceived to be limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The designation, released as part of a broader DHS policy under Executive Order 14287, took county leaders by surprise.

“Both myself and the Baca County Commissioners were taken aback and deeply concerned,” Sheriff Aaron Shiplett wrote in a public Facebook post. “At no point were we contacted by DHS or any federal agency regarding our status as a sanctuary county.”

The sheriff, along with the Board of County Commissioners, cited Resolution 2024-08, unanimously adopted in April 2024, which explicitly states that Baca County “is not, and will never be, a sanctuary county for illegal immigration.” The resolution affirms the county’s commitment to following immigration laws and limiting local resources to legal residents.

In response to the listing, county officials have contacted congressional representatives, including U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert and State Rep. Ty Winter, seeking support to have Baca County removed from the DHS list.

Federal Context and Local Repercussions

The DHS report, which includes counties and municipalities across several states, identifies jurisdictions where immigration enforcement is reportedly limited or obstructed. However, the criteria for inclusion are not always transparent and often rely on public policy statements or perceived patterns of non-cooperation.

“Local DHS offices were not involved,” noted one community commenter, attempting to clarify confusion over how such designations are made.

The listing has stirred a wave of reactions across Baca County’s tight-knit communities—ranging from expressions of gratitude for local law enforcement’s stance, to constitutional questions, to spiritual and moral concerns about how migrants are treated under U.S. law.

Constitutional Questions and Community Dialogue

One commenter, Lee Ann Rutherford Doner, pointed to protections under the U.S. Constitution—including the Fourth Amendment and the writ of habeas corpus—highlighting that these rights apply to all persons, not just citizens. She emphasized the legal distinction between warrants issued by immigration authorities and those issued by judges.

Others, such as resident Linda Jara, expressed concern that the current rhetoric could lead to fear and division. Citing Matthew 25, Jara urged compassion and a reminder of America’s immigrant foundations.

“Just because someone isn’t white doesn’t mean you need to be scared of them,” she wrote. “Christian and non-Christian people—especially Christians—should be ashamed of themselves. God would not act like this.”

In contrast, many commenters strongly supported the sheriff and commissioners, viewing the DHS listing as a federal overstep or even a political stunt. “Thank you, Sheriff Shiplett, for standing up for Baca County,” read one comment. “This is just more of the government pushing their agenda without asking local people.”

What Happens Next?

County officials have indicated they are working with state and federal representatives to clarify Baca County’s position and seek removal from the list. There is currently no known enforcement mechanism tied to the designation, but the issue has raised broader questions about how immigration policy is communicated and applied at the local level.

For now, Baca County remains on the DHS list, but leaders hope the resolution they passed in 2024, along with public clarification, will lead to a formal retraction.

---

Editor’s Note: The Plainsman Herald is committed to presenting all sides of local issues with accuracy and respect. We welcome letters to the editor and encourage civil discourse from all members of our community.